Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh S vs The Shamrao Vittal Co.Op Bank Ltd on 17 July, 2025
1
O.S.No.2757/2013
KABC010180852013
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in
Suits (R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 17th day of July 2025
::PRESENT::
SRI. DODDEGOWDA.K, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO. 2757/2013
PLAINTIFFS : 1. S.Venkatesh,
S/o Late D.Sriram,
Aged about 48 years,
2. S.Madhumalathi,
W/o K.Balaram,
Aged about 49 years,
Both are residing at No.64,
3rd Cross, 1st Stage,
Okalipuram, Bangalore-560021.
(By Sri. R.B.S- Advocate)
2
O.S.No.2757/2013
VS.
DEFENDANT : The Shamrao Vithal
Co.Op. Bank Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized
And Divisional Manager,
No.1, Central Bank Road,
Chamrajpet,
Bangalore-560018.
[By Sri.M.M.R.- Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 08-04-2013
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 09-11-2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment 17-07-2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
12 03 09
(DODDEGOWDA.K)
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru city
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed seeking direction to the defendant bank for return of original documents produced by the plaintiffs at the time of borrowing loan, in the interest of justice and equity. 3
O.S.No.2757/2013
2. The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell is that, the 1 st plaintiff and his mother late Smt.Shanthamma.S are the borrowers who borrowed loan from Bangalore Central Co- operative Society Bank Ltd by mortgaging the property bearing No.64/16, 3rd Cross, 1st Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore totally measuring 40x70 feet as security to the aforesaid credit facilities. The 1st plaintiff and his mother had borrowed the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for getting repairs of building, from the Bangalore Central Co-operative Society. Thereafter, the said Society by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 30-04-2001 cleared the said loan and even according to the defendant the balance amount was Rs.4,699/-. The said amount was paid by the plaintiffs through cheque. The said Bangalore Central Co-operative Society Bank Ltd after clearance of the loan amount, created additional loan transactions for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and 30,00,000/- extending the previous security. The plaintiffs had borrowed only the first loan and the other two subsequent loan 4 O.S.No.2757/2013 transactions are created by the defendant bank for wrongful gain by creating bogus accounts in order to grab the valuable property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have only one account in the defendant bank. The said defendant bank has been merged with the present Shamarao Vittal Co-operative Bank Ltd and the repeated requests of the plaintiffs for return of original documents/title deeds mortgaged with the defendant, has not given any fruitful result and on the other hand, the defendant has refused to return the original documents on the ground that the plaintiffs are liable to clear the balance loan amount. Except the first loan transaction for Rs.3,00,000/-, no other transactions were held by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have cleared the entire loan availed by them. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the original title deeds/ documents.
3. The defendant bank, which appeared in pursuance of the service of summons filed detailed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as under; 5
O.S.No.2757/2013 The suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as per SARFAESI ACT. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit. They became defaulter and their loan account has been classified as non-performing asset. The defendant Bank exercised its right under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI ACT. Section 17 of this Act says if any person aggrieved, which means, if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the act of the 2 nd defendant, he should have filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further Section 34 of SARFAESI ACT clearly states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit for proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal and no injunction shall be granted by any court or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred. Section 9 of CPC deals with jurisdiction of Civil Court as "The court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or implied barred".
6
O.S.No.2757/2013
4. The erstwhile the Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter called "B.C.C.B") has merged with Defendant Bank pursuant to the order of Amalgamation dated 15.02.2007 with effect from 26.02.2007 passed by Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka. By virtue of the said order, all the assets and liabilities, the rights, title and interest claims etc stand transferred to defendant bank. On amalgamation plaintiffs credit facility is maintained at the Defendant's Rajajinagar Branch.
5. The defendant bank is a Multistate Co-operative Bank governed by the provisions of Multistate Co-operative Societies Act. The 1st Plaintiff's mother Smt.S.Shanthamma is the member therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. On this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. Said Smt. S.Shanthamma had availed the following credit facilities from the Defendant Bank.
Sl.No. Account Number Loan Availed Date of Loan
1. BL 20631 Rs.30,00,000/- 05-04-2001 7 O.S.No.2757/2013
2. BL 20615 Rs.9,00,000/- 05-05-2001
3. BL 20541 Rs.3,00,000/- 04-04-2001 Total Rs.42,00,000/-
6. The 1st Plaintiff's mother Smt. Shanthamma has deposited the original title deeds of their property bearing No.64/16, Old No.64, situated at 3 rd Cross, 1st Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore measuring 40x70 feet as security to the aforesaid Loan Amount and created charge in favour of the defendant by executing Equitable Mortgage by deposit of Title Deeds. Smt. Shanthamma has committed default in repayment of the Loan Amount. Therefore, the defendant's have classified the Loan Account as N.P.A. account with effect from 08.11.2002. Thereafter the defendant Bank issued Demand Notice dated 05.04.2010 under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act calling upon the 1st Plaintiff and other legal representatives of Smt.Shanthamma to pay the balance loan amount and also informing them the Defendant Bank will enforce security interest.
8
O.S.No.2757/2013
7. The plaintiffs are still due for sum of Rs.1,03,97,542/- to the defendant bank as on 30.10.2012 excluding interest at contractual rate from 01.11.2012 and other expenses and charges. Without repayment of the aforesaid balance amount, the plaintiffs issued a Legal Notice dated 04.08.2012 to the Defendant Bank claiming that they are only due a sum of Rs.4,699/- and enclosing a cheque for the said amount demanding return of Original Title Deeds. The defendant Bank vide reply dated 15.12.2012 to the said Legal Notice categorically informed the Plaintiffs to pay balance Loan amount of Rs.1,03,97,542/- with interest at the contractual rate and other expenses to return the original title deeds and documents to the custody of the Plaintiff.
8. The averments made in Para No.4, 5, 6 and 7 that they have cleared the loan and inspite of the same the Defendant Bank did not return the documents is denied as false. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The Defendant Bank do not have any intention to grab the valuable 9 O.S.No.2757/2013 land of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to recover the loan amount. Therefore, the averments made in Para 10 of the plaint is denied as false. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiffs have not paid proper court fee on the plaint. Hence, the defendant bank prays to dismiss the suit with cost.
9. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, following issues and additional issues are framed:
:: ISSUES::
1. Deleted as per order dated 25-06-2025
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get back their original documents pledged to the defendant bank?
3. To what decree or order ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 25.06.2025
1. Whether the defendant has authority to retain the original documents/title deeds as the plaintiff has not cleared the loan?
10
O.S.No.2757/2013
10. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P31. The Asst. Manager of the defendant bank namely B.K.Chadrashekara has been examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.10 to 28 documents. Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 documents are marked by way of confrontation through PW.1.
11. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the records meticulously. Now the findings of this court to the aforesaid issues and additional issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Deleted Issue No.2: As Negative Addl.Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following;-
REASONS
12. Issue No.2 and Additional issue No.1 dated 25/06/2025: Since all these issues are intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up for discussion together in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and the law. 11
O.S.No.2757/2013 The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the 1 st plaintiff and his mother late Smt.Shanthamma.S. had borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Central Co-operative Society Bank Ltd. by mortgaging the property bearing No.64/16, situated at 3 rd Cross, 1st stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore as Security to the credit facilities and thus executed equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 30-04-2001 and the said loan so borrowed was cleared by the plaintiffs, the balance amount of Rs.4,699/- which was due to the bank was paid through cheque thus cleared the entire loan amount. Later on, the Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd was amalgamated with the defendant bank vide notification dated 15-02-2007. Such being the case, the defendant illegally created the loan transactions of Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- for the purpose of wrongful gaining and thus refused to return the original title deeds/documents to the plaintiffs despite of the fact that the entire loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is cleared by the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit seeking direction to the 12 O.S.No.2757/2013 defendant to return original documents to the plaintiff.
13. The defendant has filed detailed written statement stating that initially the 1st plaintiff and his mother Late Smt.Shanthamma.S had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant bank by depositing the original title deeds of their property bearing No.64/16, old No.64 as security to the aforesaid loan amount and created charge in favour of the defendant by executing equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, which is a registered document. The plaintiff No.1 has availed another loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 09-11-2001 and term loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on 26-04-2002 and thereafter the plaintiff No.1 and his mother have availed term loan of Rs.30,00,000./- on 03-11-2002 by executing contemporaneous agreement. Under the said agreement they have extended the mortgage of the schedule property as security to the subsequent loan facilities also and agreed to repay the loan in installments with agreed rate of interest and the said loans so borrowed by the plaintiff No.1 and his mother is not cleared so far. Hence, the 13 O.S.No.2757/2013 question of returning the documents at this stage does not arise.
14. Though the defendant has filed detailed written statement denying the averments of the plaint in the written arguments filed on 26-06-2025at paragraph No.12 it is stated that they will release the original title deeds on receipt of the entire balance loan amount under all the three pending loan accounts.
15. The plaintiff No.1 has filed affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint and examined as PW.1. Ex.P1 is the notice dated 28-12-2002 issued by the defendant. Ex.P2 is the notice dated 07-10-2004 discloses the details of the dues. Ex.P3 is the notice of possession of immovable property dated 07-12-2004 issued by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to pay the dues. Ex.P4 is the annexure discloses the details of the property mortgaged to the bank. Ex.P5 to 7 are the copies of the summons issued by Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Ex.P9 is the final caution notice issued by the 14 O.S.No.2757/2013 defendant dated 12-07-2005. Ex.P10 is the legal notice dated 04-08-2012 issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant bank calling upon the defendant to receive the balance amount of Rs.4,699/- and issue no due certificate. Ex.P11 is the death certificate of Smt.Shanthamma. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the registered equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds which discloses that initially the plaintiff had borrowed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by mortgaging the immovable property. Ex.P13 to 15 are the encumbrance certificates discloses the mortgage details. Ex.P15(a) is the complaint lodged by the 1st plaintiff with the Commissioner of Police. Ex.P16 & 17 are the postal receipts and courier receipt. Ex.P18 to 20 are the legal notices issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Ex.P21 is the notice dated 05-08-2005. Ex.P22 is the acknowledgment. Ex.P23 is the reply notice dated 15-12-2012 issued by the defendant which discloses the details of the loan borrowed and the outstanding amount. Ex.P24 & 25 are the postal acknowledgment and receipt. Ex.P26 is the 15 O.S.No.2757/2013 certified copy of the order sheet in Mis.P.No.3415/2017. Ex.P27 is the certified copy of the memo of withdrawal filed in Crl.Mis.P.No.3415/2017. Ex.P28 is the order sheet pertaining to the dispute No.1975/2005-06 before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies. Ex.P29 is the notice dated 09-10-2015 issued by the 2nd plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P30 & Ex.P31 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment.
16. The Assistant Manager of the defendant bank has been examined as DW.1. Ex.D1 is the contemporaneous agreement dated 10-07-2002, Ex.D2 is the loan application, Ex.D3 to 5 are the loan sanction letter, Ex.D6 is the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 30-04-2001, Ex.D7 is the agreement dated 30-04-2001 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants in respect of loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.D8 & 9 are the cheques, Ex.D10 & 11 are the demand promissory notes dated 26-04-2002 & 10-07-2002 discloses the signature of the plaintiff No.1 and his mother. Ex.D12 to 16 are the cheques, Ex.D17 is the Statement of loan account 16 O.S.No.2757/2013 pertaining to Smt.Shanthamma. Ex.D18 is the Certificate u/Sec. 2A (B) and 2A(C) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, Ex.D19 is the Statement of loan account pertaining to Shanthamma issued by Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet and SVC Co-operative Bank, Ex.D20 & 22 are the Certificates U/s 2A(B) and 2A(C) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, Ex.D21 is the accounts statement pertaining to Shanthamma issued by Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet and SVC Co-operative Bank, Ex.D23 is the Details of disbursement of loan amount to Shanthamma, Ex.D24 is the Savings bank statement of Shanthamma, Ex.D25 is the Proceedings of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ex.D26 is the Certificate dated 09.08.2005 issued by Bengaluru Souhardha Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamarajpet, Ex.D27 is the Letter issued by the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd., dated 02.03.2007, Ex.D28 is the Notarized copy of SPA dated 20.08.2014 .
17
O.S.No.2757/2013
17. Now with this evidence, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is able to prove their case by preponderance of probabilities. According to the plaintiffs they availed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the said amount has been paid and therefore, they are entitled to the return of original documents mortgaged with the bank. The plaintiffs have produced the documents which discloses the availment of loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Admittedly, Smt.Shanthamma has died on 04-03-2003. The death certificate is produced at Ex.P11. Ex.P12 the equitable mortgage deed also discloses that the property was mortgaged towards the loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. According to the defendant bank the plaintiff No.1 and his mother had availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30-04-2001 by mortgaging the immovable property as security to the said loan. Later on, they have availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 09-11- 2001, Rs.9,00,000/- on 26-04-2002 and Rs.30,00,000/- on 03- 07-2002 by executing contemporaneous agreement marked at Ex.D1. According to the defendant under the contemporaneous 18 O.S.No.2757/2013 agreement the plaintiffs have extended the mortgage of the schedule property as security to those loan facilities and they agreed to pay entire loans in installments together with interest.
18. Ex.D1, the contemporaneous agreement discloses that the bank considering the market value of the property and repayment capacity of the borrower agreed to grant an additional long term loan by taking the said contemporaneous agreement as deed of continuing collateral security. The said agreement bears the signature of plaintiff No.1 and his mother. The details of 3-4 loan transactions are given in the said agreement. Ex.D3, the loan sanction letter discloses sanction of I.P. loan of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchasing lorry and transport business. Ex.D4 speaks of sanction of I.P. loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and disbursement of first installment on 10-07- 2002. PW.1 in the cross-examination dated 06-06-2022 admits credit of loan amount to the bank account of his mother. The said admission reads thus;
19
O.S.No.2757/2013
ಆದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಸದರಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನವರು
ರೂ.9,00,000/- ಮತ್ತು ರೂ.30,00,000/- ಗಳನ್ನು ನನ್ನ
ತಾಯಿಯ ಬೇರೊಂದು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಜಮಾ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
19. PW.1 admits that his mother had account in the defendant bank and its number is 3625. Ex.D10 & 11, the On Demand promissory Notes bear the signatures of the plaintiff No.1 and his mother which are executed for Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- respectively. Ex.D15 & 16 discloses the withdrawal of the said loan amount. Ex.D24 the statement of account pertaining to the account No.3625 of Smt.Shanthamma.S. discloses the credits and debits from the account of the defendant. The said statement discloses the transfer of subsequent loan amount to the account of Smt.Shanthamma. Though the plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant has obtained their signatures on blank papers while advancing first loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, they neither disputed the signatures nor proved that their signatures have obtained on blank papers. The oral evidence of DW.1 coupled with 20 O.S.No.2757/2013 documentary evidence including the contemporaneous agreement, statement of account and loan sanction letters, makes it clear that apart from first loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, the plaintiff No.1 and his mother have subsequently availed additional loan. The plaintiffs have not produced documents to show the clearance of the entire loan amount. The case of the defendant is based on documentary evidence.
20. Section 171 of the Contract Act which deals with the banker's lien, does apply to Co-operative banks. The said Section grants bankers a right of lien, which allows them to retain goods bailed to them as security for even a general balance of account. Section 171 allows the bankers to retain a customer's goods, securities, or documents until the customers debt is settled. This right, also known as a general lien, enables the banks to recover outstanding dues by holding onto the customer's assets. Of course, the said right of lien is applicable unless there is a specific agreement between the bank and the customer that negates this right. In the instant case, none of the parties have produced any contrary agreement to demonstrate 21 O.S.No.2757/2013 that the bankers right of lien is inapplicable. It is relevant to reproduce Section 171 of the Contract Act, which reads as under;
Sec.171: General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers.- Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with the general lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court, and policy-brokers. It essentially allows these professionals, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, to retain goods bailed to them as security for a general balance of account. Other individuals do not have this right unless there's an express contract.
21. The documentary evidence produced by the defendant abundantly makes it clear that the plaintiff and his 22 O.S.No.2757/2013 mother apart from availing the initial loan of Rs.3,00,000/- also availed additional loans by extending contemporaneous agreement as a deed of continuing collateral security. Absolutely no evidence is forthcoming to establish the payment of additional loans. Though the defendant has not produced any document to show the exact outstanding amount, one thing is clear that the plaintiffs are liable to pay certain amount to the defendant. The counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2001 SCC Online KAR. 579 in the case of S.Vasupalaiah /VS/ Vysya Bank, wherein it is held that "the bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right to the banker judiciously recognized and in the absence of agreement to the contrary by virtue of statutory provision U/s 171 of the Contract Act, banker has a general lien over such securities and amount in its possession". Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not 23 O.S.No.2757/2013 entitled to return of original title deeds/documents till clearance of the loan/dues as the bank has a general lieu over all forms of securities. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered as 'Negative' and Addl.Issue No.1 dated 25-06-2025 is answered in the 'Affirmative'.
22. Issue No.3: In view of the foregoing discussion on the above issues and the additional issues and the findings thereon, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
It is needless to state that the defendant is duty bound to return the original title deeds/documents to the plaintiffs immediately after clearance of loan amount.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 17th day of July, 2025.) (DODDEGOWDA.K) XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City 24 O.S.No.2757/2013 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
II.
(a) Plaintiff's side :
PW.1 S.Venkatesh
Defendant's side :
DW.1 B.K.Chandrashekara
List of documents marked on behalf of :
(b) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Notice dated 28-12-2002
Ex.P.2 Notice dated 07-10-2004
Ex.P.3 Notice of possession of immovable property
dated 07-12-2004
Ex.P.4 Annexure
Ex.P.5 to 7 Copy of summons
Ex.P.8 Application
Ex.P.9 Last notice dated 12-07-2005
25
O.S.No.2757/2013
Ex.P.10 Legal notice dated 04-08-2012
Ex.P11 Death certificate of Smt. Shantamma
Ex.P12 Certified copy of the equatable mortgage by
deposit of the title deeds dt. 30.04.2001 Ex.P13 to Encumbrance Certificate P15 Ex.P15(a) Office copy of the police complaint dt.
03.02.2016
Ex.P16 Postal receipt
Ex.P17 Currier receipt with acknowledgment.
Ex.P18 Office copy of the legal notice dt.25.11.2012
with postal receipt
Ex.P19 Office copy of the legal notice dt.25.11.2012
Ex.P20 Reply notice dt. 06.07.2010
Ex.P21 Legal notice dt. 05.08.2005 along with the
postal receipt
Ex.P22 Acknowledgment
Ex.P23 Reply notice dt. 15.12.2012
Ex.P24 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P25 Postal cover with receipt
Ex.P.26 Certified copy of Order sheet in Misc.
3415/2017 (17 pages)
Ex.P.27 Certified copy of memo for withdrawal and
memo for seeking an order to return original documents are together marked.
Ex.P.28 Certified copy of the Order sheet in JRD/UBF/1975/2005-06 ( 9 pages) 26 O.S.No.2757/2013 Ex.P.29 Notice dated 09.10.2015 Ex.P.30 Two postal receipts together marked. Ex.P.31 Two postal acknowledgments together marked Ex.P32 Request application dated 05-07-2002 Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 Agreement dated 10-07-2002
Ex.D.1(a) Signature of witness
Ex.D.2 Loan application
Ex.D.2(a) Signature of mother of PW.1
Ex.D.3 to 5 Loan sanctioned documents
Ex.D.3(a) to Signature of witness
5(a)
Ex.D6 Mortgage deed
Ex.D7 Agreement dated 30-04-2001
Ex.D8 & 9 Cheques
Ex.D.10 On Demand Promissory Note dated
26.04.2002
Ex.D.11 Another On Demand Promissory Note dated
10.07.2002
Ex.D.12 Cheque dated 05.12.2001 for Rs.13800/-
drawn on Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet.
27
O.S.No.2757/2013 Ex.D.13 Cheque bearing No.092787 dated 12.11.2001 for Rs.5,80,000/-
Ex.D.14 Cheque bearing No.013158 dated 26.04.2002 Ex.D.15 Cheque bearing No.016644 dated 10.07.2002 drawn on Bengaluru Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet.
Ex.D.16 Cheque bearing No.099081 dated 11.07.2002 for Rs.8,60,000/-
Ex.D.17 Statement of loan account pertaining to Smt. Shanthamma Ex.D.18 Certificate u/Sec. 2A (B) and 2A(C) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.D.19 Statement of loan account pertaining to Shanthamma issued by Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet and SVC Co-operative Bank Ex.D.20 Certificate u/Sec. 2A (B) and 2A(C) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.D.21 Another accounts statement pertaining to Shanthamma issued by Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet and SVC Co-operative Bank Ex.D.22 Certificate u/Sec. 2A (B) and 2A(C) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.D.23 Details of disbursement of loan amount to Shanthamma Ex.D.24 Savings bank statement of Shanthamma.
(2pages) Ex.D.25 Proceedings of Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ex.D.26 Certificate dated 09.08.2005 issued by Bengaluru Souhardha Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamrajpet (Compared and 28 O.S.No.2757/2013 tallied with the original produced for the inspection of the court and marked) Ex.D.27 Letter issued by the Shamrao Vithal Co-
operative Bank Ltd., dated 02.03.2007 (Compared and tallied with the original produced for the inspection of the court and marked) Ex.D.28 Notarized copy of SPA dated 20.08.2014 (Compared and tallied with the original produced for the inspection of the court and marked) XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.